Thursday, November 04, 2010

High Court judge calls for more Christians in Parliament

At the sentencing of Roshonara Choudhry, the trainee teacher who attempted to murder Stephen Timms MP, the public gallery erupted with cries of 'Allahu akbar' ('God is great'), 'British go to hell' and 'Curse the judge'.

Quite why they were not immediately arrested for contempt of court is unknown.

Praising their God in a court of law?

Just about acceptable.

Passing opinion on the limited soteriological options of the British?

Well, it might be ‘racist’, but we’ll call it ‘freedom of expression’.

But ‘Curse the judge’?

How did that pass without immediate intervention by the Judge?

Miss Choudhry appeared by video-link because she 'refused to accept the jurisdiction of the court'.

Why was this permitted? Are all ‘citizens’ of the UK granted this option? Are we not all subjects of Her Majesty, and therefore all subject to the Crown in Court, on whose behalf the Judge presides and dispenses the Queen’s Justice for the maintenance of the Queen's Peace?

As Miss Choudhry was sent down ‘for life’, with a minimum term of 15 years, the Prophet’s loyal rent-a-crowd faithfully protested outside the Old Bailey with their usual offensive placards, hurling their usual inflammatory insults, which included 'Death to Timms’, presumably with the hope or expectation that he might join Margaret Thatcher in hell.

Why were they not immediately arrested for incitement to murder or, at the very least, the public order offence of causing alarm and distress?

If the police do not treat everyone equally under the law, irrespective of race or religion, they give the impression that ‘devout’ Muslims may indeed incite their co-religionists to murder Members of Parliament, and that they may do so with impunity.

But in passing sentence, Mr Justice Cooke observed something very interesting about Stephen Timms. He said:

“I understand that he brings to bear his own faith, which upholds very different values to those which appear to have driven this defendant.

“Those values are those upon which the common law of this country was founded and include respect and love for one's neighbour, for the foreigner in the land, and for those who consider themselves enemies, all as part of one's love of God.

“These values were the basis of our system of law and justice and I trust that they will remain so as well as motivating those, like Mr Timms, who hold public office.”

This is really quite a significant theological intervention by a High Court judge into the religious constitution of Parliament.

Mr Justice Cooke referred throughout his judgment to Miss Choudhry’s ‘Islamic duties’ and the ‘Islamic teaching’ which encouraged her to pursue Jihad in order to become a martyr because ‘to fight and die for your religion is the highest honour’.

Whether or not he has interpreted the essence of Islam correctly, he has no doubt that Miss Choudhry’s interpretation of it espouses values which are antithetical to those of Christianity and liberal democracy.

And he is clear in his view that Christian values, which underpin the British foundations of law and justice, can only be sustained as long as there are Christians like Mr Timms in Parliament.

And that is the sort of Christian whose faith informs his politics; who does not hide his light under a seat in the Cabinet and is unafraid to associate with groups like ‘Christians in Parliament’, which prioritises prayer and Bible study.

But there is something in the comments of Mr Justice Cooke which chimes with largely unreported comments made by Baroness Warsi on the eve of the General Election. Speaking at a dinner in Rotherham in response to a previous speaker who had called on more Muslims to enter politics, she said:

"[He] says that we need more Muslims MPs, that we need more Muslims in the House of Lords. I would actually disagree with that because I think one of the lessons we have learnt in the last five years in politics is that not all Muslims that go to into politics have asool."

‘Asool’ is Urdu for ‘moral principles’.

Clearly, the Baroness was not saying that all Muslims who go into politics lack moral principles any more than Mr Justice Cooke was saying that all the values of Islam are antithetical to those of Christianity. And yet it is clear that what both are saying is undoubtedly true: there are values in the strident Sunni-Wahhabi expression of Islam which are antithetical to the common law of this country, and not every Muslim in politics is there for the right reasons or with the right motives.

Of course, the same can be said of professing Christians Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists (pace, of course, Dr Evan Harris, whose motives are always as pure as the driven snow). But ‘devout’ adherents of these faiths are not generally inciting murder, insulting our armed forces, subverting justice or attempting to assassinate Members of Parliament.

All of which amounts to treason.

Baroness Warsi specifically opposes more Muslims in Parliament.

Mr Justice Cooke specifically wants more Christians in Parliament.

And the reason?

Both the Baroness and the Judge are concerned with values, moral principles, the common law, the love of God and love for one's neighbour.

These are indeed the bedrock of a constitution of which the Christian Monarch is the Chief Cornerstone just as Christ is to His Church.

I seem to remember somewhere that the representation of Muslims in parliament is higher than their presence in the country. Is this not another aspect that should be highlighted in support of Baroness Warsi's comments?

Likewise, thank you for bringing this to our attention. These not insignificant details seem to have somehow been overlooked by the BBC (as did the fact that this lady was a Muslim, right until the verdict).

The strongest evidence against letting Islam infiltrate our legislative or judicial systems is the evidence of our own eyes. Can anyone point me to an Islamic state where people would choose to live. Even many Muslims seem keen to escape them!

I am of the opinion that, while Christian ethics underpin our laws (which I don't have a problem with), we should keep religion out of both politics and the law. Choudhry should have been forced into court to hear her sentancing, as would any other convicted criminal. Who gives a flying frig what she thinks about jurisdiction? She lives here, she is subject to our laws. End of!

Morality and religion are not mutually inseparable. Being a good Christian/Jew/Hindu/Sikh etc requires at least a modicum of morality. Being a moral person does not require religious faith. Politics and law does not require religion, only morality. It seems that we currently have too much of one and not enough of the other.

At the end of the day Timms, no matter how devout, voted for an illegal war.

Surely you must know that ‘hate crime’ (which is PC, Cultural Marxism or newspeak for speech and thought ‘crime’) and ‘racism’ can only be committed by the indigenous people of this country whenever they should seek to discuss and, God forbid, object to their own genocide. The ‘religion of peace’ is in no way able to perpetrate such vile acts of ‘hate crime’, let alone engage in acts of terror in the air and on public transport. All followers of the ‘religion of peace’ must be treated with the utmost respect at all times and afforded the most generous jizya by kafir judges, police and politicians that rule the country until full sharia law is introduced as hailed by the Archdhimmi of Canterbury. “Wake up a smell the coffee” as one ‘moderate’ Moslem said to one of many Labour Home Secretaries.

Both the Baroness and the Judge are concerned with values, moral principles, the common law, the love of God and love for one's neighbour.

These are indeed the bedrock of a constitution of which the Christian Monarch is the Chief Cornerstone just as Christ is to His Church.

Remove that, and the whole edifice will come crumbling down.

We live in a liberal democracy where many values are shared by most people. I agree that the teaching and practice of Islam is antithetical to many of those values. The origin of our shared values derives from our history and Christianity was a significant part of that (for good or ill). However in the society in which we live today Christianity has been marginalised. There are numerous reasons for this but one of them is that many people simply don’t believe in god or are at least agnostic and you will agree that this is a fairly important component of Christianity.

Contrary to the doom merchants who post here the absence of Christianity in most peoples lives has not resulted in wholesale immorality. Society has changed enormously since the war, much of it driven by economic pressures. Many communities have been broken up by changes to industry and commerce, the extended family has become much more extended, welfare changes have allowed those with no economic means to start families, the material well-being of most has risen enormously, drugs have become widely available, the class divide has become much reduced, the media has driven aspirations of many to an unrealisable level and add to this our current economic woes.

The negative consequences of these and other changes has resulted in a society that is “uncertain and afraid” (to quote Auden) as none of us know what the future holds. Gone are the days when son followed father and could expect a life-times employment with a single firm. But despite all this most people get on with their lives and the whole edifice has not come crumbling down. Unlike many here, most people live happily and morally without need of “god’s love”, and see religion as part of the problem and not the solution.

We don’t need more Christians or indeed atheists in parliament; we simply need people who seek the greater good. They will disagree about the means but the important thing is their intent.

An odd conclusion Gnostic. Are you implying that Mr Timms and others who voted as they, rather than you, saw fit deserve to be stabbed?

Be that as it may, on the general question of representation, Islam carries the seeds of our destruction as a Christian nation. The BBC, formerly the voice of Britain, has a Muslim Head of Religious Broadcasting on the grounds that 'he was the best man for the job'. Are those who appointed him aware that in Islam Christians and other non-Muslims are regarded as second class and that any means are legitimate to make every nation including Great Britain a Muslim country?

There are many reports of Christians are being killed and driven out of Islamic countries yet in Britain we allow Muslims to build Mosques and encourage their involvement in public affairs never knowing whether it is for the good of our country or for Islam.

Sooner or later this issue must be addressed. The longer it is left the greater the danger.

How much our laws depend on 1200 years of Christian culture is very difficult to establish, as said culture is so ingrained in all of us, whether we are aware of it or not. That what we think of as "decency" is not shared by other cultures is made abundantly clear by the Cairo declaration - essentially stripping the UDHR of all items that are incompatible with Sharia, i.e. most of them. It is therefore taking many of us a great deal of soul searching to figure out where "decency" comes from. Attributing our values to those who do not share them is a recipe for disaster, as Sun Tzu well understood.

By the way, the Iraq war was not illegal. The Attorney General rules on such things, not the UN and not you, regardless of the maxim of Lenin and Goebbels that endless repetition makes a lie true. You may well think it immoral, but then you did not see the full horrors of Saddam's regime, while Ann Clwyd and others did. Such experience can dramatically change superficial theories of ethics.

Here I go again, a bit knee jerk but after seeing the pictures of those filth and what they are saying, I felt compelled to get it off my chest.

If they had tried this at some point in the past, they would probably have received the beating they most definitely deserve. The fact that these vermin are allowed to express their hatred for all things British and Western, totally disregarding behaviour protocols that the rest of us adhere to, shows us how far down the toilet we have gone.

AncientBriton, I was merely using Timms as an example that being religious is not necessarily the same as being moral. Cameron confesses to attending church and Blair now does "God" on a highly lucrative basis. I would trust neither of the buggers with a fart in a paper bag because morality is an alien concept to such people.

Attendance at the Crown Court Theatre makes one wonder what exactly merits "Contempt of Court" ? It seems as if only The Lord Chancellor can authorise a Crown Court Judge to invoke it as I have seen bizarre behaviour go unpunished by our bewigged friends.

I think it is just another theatrical device from a bygone era....judges are little more than Civil Servants paid on The Consolidated Fund

Thank you,a wise and thought provoking post as per usual,the bearded chaps in the photos make my cold blood boil,not that I have any beef with facial hair,I`ve sported a full beard myself in the past,no your grace its the furious hatred of Britain,its culture and Christian peoples.

I ask myself,if they detest us so much why are they here?,why do they not jump on a Ryan Air flight and live in a Muslim country of their choice? and how many of these hateful men/women are among us.

Increasingly I find answering my own question thus,they see themselves as holy warriors,here to convert our country to Islam,by fair means of foul,their faith binds them all as one force,a bind far stronger than their sense of "Britishness".

I know many others hold this view,and would say I`m late to the party,yes I confess I`ve resisted the temptation to believe the worst.

Maybe I`ve resisted the relentless propaganda of the fear mongers for too long...perhaps there is something to fear for Christians,my Kingdom and society as a whole...the march of Islam.

You misunderstand the workings of international law. International law is not determined by the Attorney General, nor even by the United Nations, but by the consent of the nations of the world. What that means is that the law relating to the high seas became established, and fixed, during the 19th century. It was what the Royal Navy said it was. Similarly, the rules about going to war, and never mind Aquinas, were established during the latter part of the 20th century. They are what the Pentagon say they are.

Only when our politicians identify Islam as as a political construct with global ambitions will we begin to defend ourselves without hands tied behind our backs. We should not shed another single drop of our serving soldiers blood chasing shadows in Afghanistan. Islam and its vile literature should be defined as unwelcome in our culture and borders; it is incompatible by it's own writ, purpose and meaning.

Anjem Choudry, hate him or double hate him, is the only attention grabbing Muslim who actually tells it as it is.

Both the Baroness and the Judge are concerned with values, moral principles, the common law, the love of God and love for one's neighbour.

A Christian’s love for his neighbour encompasses, or should encompass, all his neighbours. A Muslim’s neighbourly love extends only to other Muslims: ‘Let believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful—he that does this has nothing to hope for from Allah—except in self-defence.’ (Qur’an 3:28)

If I were in a cynical mood, I would argue that Warsi’s prevarication over Muslim MPs comes under the heading of ‘self-defence’—she is doing her bit to lull the kuffar into a false sense of security.

@ The Lizard King (12:48)—I ask myself, if they detest us so much why are they here?

These muslims may well be sneaky, sly, underhand, and seditious; but thank God, they are also as stupid as hell!

They just cannot hold it together, no matter what sleight of hand they employ, they always bog-it-up!

You'd almost believe that the BNP had handed them their silly little sheets of paper to wave about in front of the media: ''Come see how stupid we are!''

''We are YOUR enemies!''

Notwithstanding our own stupidity in allowing these medieval numb-nuts from contaminating our country, we can at least be assured that we are fast approaching the point of 'critical mass' whereby all such Islamic numpties will be swept away in a tidal wave of total rejection!

Points well articulated your grace . I peprhaps share a little of the pessimism in the breakdown of British law and values , that once had such a common understanding .We must also not forget the liberal socialist elite minds that have believed that mass immigration would lead to some sort of inescapable fabian eurotopia. It is precisly this foolishness that led to Mr Timms recieving one his voters opinons so directly.The sad sight of Ms Choudrys suporters , shouting contempt and britsh go to hell , rather than the more christian view or remorse or repentence , also shows some differing views on the soul and the Brtish foundation of a godly life and civility .As for death to Mr Timms , the irony of that ,seems to have beaten the many years of spin that it was a talking cure and fault was with the mean spirited people who objected to the cultural changes and its certain opression of indigenous culture and values .

For many years , I assumed it was all tolerable and we would live with the differneces , but when labour considered the down grading of Christmas and the response was so weak , I thought we were heading for the abyss, a culture without meaning other than socialist. A video from sweden showing the change in one its towns and its unhappy cultural exchange showed that resentment was becoming more than what I thought were a few crackpot voices who had only ever read mien kampf.

This trial shows a number of things , let us hope we dont lose our faith in what may be a time when we are undone by an insoluable imposed competition , to live in Christian country as freely as we once did.

I do not always agree with everything Cranmer writes but in the case of this article, 'High Court judge calls for more Christians in Parliament', and others below it, I concur wholeheartedly. We had better wake up and see clearly what is happening to our customs, our own home-grown laws, and of our own long-held religious traditions - regardless of whether or not one feels strongly affiliated with them.

They are what have made us who we are, for better or worse, and we allow them to be undermined from out with our country at our peril. I have travelled widely and know of no country I have visited where the disrespect for and undermining of the traditional customs and religion of the nation would be tolerated as they have been in Britain for far too long already. It emboldens those that do not adhere to our way of life and accept our laws as their own. They would rule over us according to laws foreign to us. They would be both the arbiters of those laws and would apply them too, no doubt with fervent relish. This for example could presumably mean that thousands of women could face the possibility of being stoned to death.

Show me one Muslim country that passively sits back and allows such abuse of its population, its courts, its politicians, its armed forces, its customs and its age-old religious traditions. You cannot. It is not possible for it would not be countenanced, and what is more, rightly so. Neither should it be here in Britain. The longer we keep trying to accommodate the demands of those that will not accept our ways and the more we allow people to rule over us and undermine our society's legal and cultural mores from abroad, the greater will be the long-term damage and potentially the internal strife that will result when the people of these islands, by which I mean both those that view themselves as historically British and those that willingly accept their place in this country according to its laws, finally lose patience once and for all.

Politicians, clerics, beware. It is a noble thing to try to find common ground and understanding with different cultures and religions. I support this. Between like minds there is plenty of it. But understand that when others play by a very different and undemocratic set of rules, when they speak of peace yet act differently, when they actively promulgate values alien to this nation and its people and you keep bending ever-further backwards in order to try to find common ground and placate their increasingly strident demands, you will eventually find yourself prostrate. At that point your opponents will advance, upright and strong. They will walk across you as if you were a welcome mat, wipe their shoes on you and like-as-not throw your bodies into the sea.

Where there is common ground and genuine reciprocity all well and good but this is not always the case. Do not overestimate your capabilities nor dwell in the conceit that we are, or should be, the light that all peoples of the world should guide their ships by. I am thinking of the undemocratic and unaccountable governments of China and of the European Union, and of those extreme elements within Islam that would not just refuse to convert to Christianity of their own volition and/or assimilate themselves within our culture but would force everyone here, in their adopted homeland (be they first, second or third generation immigrants) to accept the religious laws and customs of their original cultures given half a chance.

When reciprocity, mutual respect and forbearance are absent it is your duty - social, moral, religious, political and patriotic duty - to stand firm and ensure that those that seek to undermine us understand that we will not allow it. One can only practise appeasement so far. The peoples of this island nation are beginning to cry out for it and just like any other people elsewhere in the world they deserve nothing less.

Thank you your Grace for a fairly balanced article - in an area where so often balance seems to be lacking, on both sides of the argument.

And it is wonderful to read those words from the judge - Islam has yet to produce a liberal democracy with care for one's neighbours and enemies, and atheism has failed to give any basis, according to its own standards, for any morality. The Christian principles of love, mercy, but also justice, are the very bedrock of liberal democratic law.

Muslim suicide bombers in Britain are set to begin a three-day strike on Monday in a dispute over the number of virgins they are entitled to in the afterlife. Emergency talks with Al Qaeda have so far failed to produce an agreement

The unrest began last Tuesday when Al Qaeda announced that the number of virgins a suicide bomber would receive after his death will be cut by 25% this February from 72 to only 54. The rationale for the cut was the increase in recent years of the number of suicide bombings and a subsequent shortage of virgins in the afterlife.

The suicide bombers' union, the British Organization of Occupational Martyrs ( or B.O.O.M. ) responded with a statement that this was unacceptable to its members and immediately balloted for strike action.

General Secretary Abdullah Amir told the press, "Our members are literally working themselves to death in the cause of Jihad. We don't ask for much in return but to be treated like this is like a kick in the teeth".

Speaking from his shed in Tipton in the West Midlands in which he currently resides, Al Qaeda chief executive Osama bin Laden explained, "We sympathize with our workers concerns but Al Qaeda is simply not in a position to meet their demands. They are simply not accepting the realities of modern-day Jihad in a competitive marketplace. Thanks to Western depravity, there is now a chronic shortage of virgins in the afterlife. It's a straight choice between reducing expenditure and laying people off. I don't like cutting wages but I'd hate to have to tell 3000 of my staff that they won't be able to blow themselves up."

Spokespersons for the unions in the North East of England, Ireland, Wales and the entire Australian continent stated that the strike would not affect their operations as "There are no virgins in their areas anyway".

Apparently the drop in the number of suicide bombings has been put down to the emergence of that Scottish singing star, Susan Boyle - now that Muslims know what a virgin looks like that they are not so keen on going to paradise. ***(copied this in verbatim but apologies for the last sentence and to Susan Boyle as it is a bit gratuitous)

A Christian’s love for his neighbour encompasses, or should encompass, all his neighbours.

Since most "Christian" values are actually Jewish and to be found in Leviticus, it is important to see what Torah-observant Jesus meant in context rather than in the secularised form of "Christianity" marketed through our lax religious prism of 20th Century Apostasy

Whether or not he has interpreted the essence of Islam correctly, he has no doubt that Miss Choudhry’s interpretation of it espouses values which are antithetical to those of Christianity and liberal democracy.

I would further suggest that the murderous actions of this individual are not only antithetical to the principle of Christianity and liberal democracy - they are actually antithetical to basic human decency. There's no limit on man's capacity to commit evil, especially when egged on by a debased theology - be it Islamic or any other. (And that includes Marxism and national socialism.)

An excellent post, Your Grace. Mr Justice Cooke is a man of courage and must be congratulated for his un-PC defence of Christianity. Please let us know if you hear that he has been recommended for counselling. One can only speculate on what the Islamo-nutters are saying about the judge on the web and in their prayer-rooms.

He of the hooked hands brought about by attempting to let off bombs in his original country of Egypt and from which he was subsequently banished and had his passport revoked, has enjoyed a great victory over the British government in it's attempts to do likewise for similarly trying to provoke similar outrages within these shores now that it is harder for him to actually light the fuse and blow innocents to pieces himself.

His appeal against extradition and the cancellation of his passport was upheld, no doubts to triumphal whoops from him and his supporters who gleefully use the vaguaries and accomodating nature of the British courts against us even as they plot to overturn those same rules and impose harsh foreign rules upon the people of this country.

*See my comment of yesterday in which I stated that you would find not one Muslim country willing to put up with such nonesense, and can you blame them. They act. They say what they mean and mean what they say and good luck to them. But where on earth does it leave the beleagured people of Britain?!

Terry White .... it is, or rather it should be, beyond belief. Yet another feeble, wet, white-liberal judgement that will serve to push Britain toward future civil unrest/armed conflict ... it will surely end in tears...

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)